Haynie v. Hanson
| Decision Date | 03 April 1962 |
| Citation | 114 N.W.2d 443,16 Wis.2d 299 |
| Parties | Adaline HAYNIE et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Kenneth S. HANSON et al., Appellants, Allstate Insurance Co., a foreign insurance corp., Interpleaded Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
This is an action by Adaline Haynie and others against Kenneth Hanson and his insurance carrier, Heritage Mutual Insurance Company, to recover for personal injuries sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident which occurred while Mrs. Havnie was a passenger in an automobile owned by her husband, Robert Haynie. Mr. and Mrs. Haynie are residents of the state of Illinois. The accident occurred near Janesville in Rock County, Wisconsin.
The defendants impleaded Allstate Insurance Company, which carried insurance on the automobile of Robert Haynie, alleging in the cross-complaint that Allstate would be liable for contribution because of Mr. Haynie's negligence. It their answer Allstate denied that Mr. Haynie was negligent, and further pleaded as an affirmative defense the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Haynie are residents of Illinois and that the law of Illinois prohibits a wife's action in tort against her husband.
Upon Allstate's motion for summary judgment the circuit court for Rock County entered an order dismissing the cross-complaint of the defendants against Allstate. The appeal is from that order.
Wickhem & Consigny, Janesville, Gilbert D. Sedor, Janesville, of counsel, for appellants.
Berg & Berg, Janesville, for defendant-respondent.
In Haumschild v. Continental Casualty Co. (1959), 7 Wis.2d 130, 95 N.W.2d 814, it was determined that Wisconsin would apply the law of the state of domicile when a conflict-of-laws question was presented involving the capacity of one spouse to sue the other in tort. We are asked to modify our ruling in Haumschild so as to permit an Illinois husband, and his automobile insurance carrier, to be held liable in Wisconsin for his wife's injuries arising out of an accident in Wisconsin.
In support of their contention the appellants adopt two principal lines of argument. The first is that there are factual variances between the case at bar and the Haumschild case and, secondly, that public policy and substantial justice require the application of Wisconsin law in the case at bar.
In Haumschild, Wisconsin was the domicile of the parties and the place of the action. The tort occurred in California, and it was a one-car accident. In the case at bar, Wisconsin is the situs of both the tort and the action; the domicile of the spouses involved is in Illinois, and it was a two-car accident. In our opinion, these factual variances do not warrant a different rule in the case at bar from that reached in Haumschild. In the latter case at p. 138, at page 818 of 95 N.W.2d the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Sonday v. Dave Kohel Agency, Inc., 2004AP2322.
-
Schwartz v. Schwartz
...cases. The leading case is Haumschild v. Continental Casualty Co., 7 Wis.2d 130, 95 N.W.2d 814 (1959). See also Haynie v. Hanson, 16 Wis.2d 299, 114 N.W.2d 443 (1962) and Pirc v. Kortebein, 186 F.Supp. 621 (Wis.1960). Other jurisdictions giving some support to this rule include Alaska, Minn......
-
Zelinger v. State Sand & Gravel Co.
...of the wrong would apply its tort law to these three causes of action unless we followed Haumschild as was done in Haynie v. Hanson (1962), 16 Wis.2d 299, 114 N.W.2d 443, and apply Illinois law to the interspousal phase of the husband's suit. But then in the minor's action we would be faced......
-
Korth v. Mueller
...of one spouse to sue the other in tort. Haumschild v. Continental Casualty Co., 7 Wis.2d 130, 95 N.W.2d 814 (1959); Haynie v. Hanson, 16 Wis.2d 299, 114 N.W.2d 443 (1962). In Castonzo v. General Casualty Company, 251 F.Supp. 948 (W.D.Wis. 1966), and Magid v. Decker, supra, I considered the ......
-
Comments on the Roundtable Discussion of Choice of Law - Russell J. Weintraub
...cases & materials on conflict of laws 493 (10th ed. 1996). 50. 95 N.W.2d 814 (Wis. 1959). 51. Id. at 818. 52. See id. 53. Id. at 817. 54. 114 N.W.2d 443 (Wis. 1962). 55. See id. at 444. 56. See Zelinger v. State Sand & Gravel Co., 156 N.W.2d 466, 472 (Wis. 1968) (stating that the Wisconsin ......